Robert Lewis Hinkle

The case involved Leon County, Florida, and its energy district challenging restrictions imposed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's purchase of mortgages subordinate to Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) liens, arguing that the restrictions were invalid and would harm their local PACE program. The court dismissed the lawsuit. It held that the FHFA took the challenged actions in its role as conservator of the Enterprises, and federal law prohibits courts from restraining or affecting such conservatorship functions under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f). The opinion reasoned that the restrictions fell within the conservator's broad powers to preserve and conserve assets and maintain sound operations, even though FHFA also serves as a regulator.

business & regulatoryfederal powerenvironmentproperty

This case involves a hard-of-hearing inmate in the Florida prison system who alleged denial of access to television and radio services provided to other inmates and sought volume-boosting devices as an accommodation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Florida Department of Corrections moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act after the plaintiff was transferred to a new facility, where he had not completed the full grievance process. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff's prior full exhaustion of the same claim at his previous institution provided sufficient notice to the Department and satisfied the exhaustion requirement. The reasoning emphasized that a transfer does not restart the exhaustion obligation when the underlying issue remains the same and the Secretary of the Department bears ultimate responsibility for grievances, making further exhaustion an unnecessary formality.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

This interpleader case arose after Pro-Steel Buildings owed $60,304.37 for construction work that was claimed by the United States (via a tax levy on BMC), BMC, and Big Metal; Pro-Steel deposited the full amount in the court registry and sought recovery of its attorney’s fees and costs. After partial summary judgment and a settlement that allocated most funds to the government and $9,000 to Big Metal, the court addressed Pro-Steel’s claim to recover its fees and costs solely from the remaining $9,000 fund. The court overruled untimely and meritless objections, found that Pro-Steel reasonably incurred $11,863.61 in fees and $487.50 in costs, and awarded the entire $9,000 plus interest to Pro-Steel because controlling circuit precedent limited recovery to funds not subject to the government’s tax lien. The ruling rested on equitable principles allowing a neutral stakeholder to be made whole for fees incurred in good faith, the reasonableness of the claimed amounts, and the fact that the available fund was the only source from which Pro-Steel could recover.

proceduretaxesfederal power

This case concerned whether the State of Florida violated the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act by selling bulk driver’s license records containing personal information to a private company, ShadowSoft, which then made the data available online to subscribers who paid a fee, verified their identity, and swore under penalty of perjury that they would use the information only for one of the 14 purposes permitted by the statute. The plaintiff, a class of Florida drivers, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the state agency responsible for the disclosures, arguing that the bulk sale and online availability did not qualify as disclosure “for use” in the permitted ways. Following a bench trial, the court held that the state’s disclosures complied with the DPPA. The court reasoned that the statute permits disclosure when the information is provided for use in an allowed manner, that the company’s verification steps and perjury requirements sufficiently limited use to the statutory exemptions, and that there was no evidence of actual or likely misuse; this interpretation aligned with the statute’s text and other judicial decisions.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case is a class action under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act alleging that Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles employees unlawfully disclosed drivers’ personal information in bulk. After both sides filed timely summary-judgment motions that were denied, the defendants filed an untimely second summary-judgment motion based on a new theory drawn from recent Fifth Circuit precedent without first seeking leave. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the second motion. The ruling rests on the untimeliness of the filing and the lack of permission to submit it after the deadline, while expressly preserving the defendants’ ability to present their new theory at trial and scheduling a case-management conference to address further proceedings.

procedurecivil rights

This case involves four individuals seeking to pool funds and purchase radio advertisements opposing a proposed Florida constitutional amendment on the November 2010 ballot. Florida law would classify them as a political committee, triggering requirements to register, appoint a treasurer, disclose contributions, and restrictions barring anonymous contributions, cash over $50, anonymous ads, and spending contributions received in the final five days before the election. The court granted a preliminary injunction solely on the five-day spending restriction, permitting use of such contributions if fully disclosed in advance, while denying relief on the other challenges. The decision rested on the plaintiffs showing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for the narrow disclosure-timed issue under the First Amendment, along with the remaining preliminary-injunction factors.

electionsfree speech

In Taylor v. Homecomings Financial, LLC, the named plaintiffs in a purported class action sued the mortgage lender and loan servicer under Florida state law for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair or deceptive trade practices. The claims centered on allegations that the loan documents inadequately disclosed the possibility of negative amortization if borrowers made only the minimum required payments on their payment-option mortgages. The court dismissed the first amended complaint, concluding that the note, truth-in-lending disclosure statement, and program disclosure fully explained the loan mechanics in clear terms that satisfied federal Truth in Lending Act requirements. The servicer was dismissed for the additional reason that the complaint alleged no involvement by it in the disclosures or any breach of contract.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The plaintiff leased a car from the defendant and, after surrendering it at the end of the lease term, disputed a bill for minor damage repairs based on a lease provision waiving liability for certain small damages. While the billing dispute continued, the defendant reported the nonpayment to a consumer-reporting agency, which harmed the plaintiff's credit. The plaintiff sued under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and various state laws, including the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and common-law claims for defamation and related torts. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the FCRA provides no private right of action against a furnisher of credit information like the defendant in these circumstances because notice of the dispute came directly from the plaintiff rather than a consumer-reporting agency, and that the FCRA preempts the state-law claims. The court allowed the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case is a land-use dispute in Wakulla County, Florida, where out-of-town developers sued the county, its commission chair, and neighboring landowners, alleging that the county violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating their development applications differently from others without a rational basis, along with claims for procedural due process violations, takings without just compensation, open-meeting law breaches, and defamation by the chair and neighbors. The court upheld the equal-protection claims but dismissed the remaining counts. The procedural-due-process claim was dismissed because process was available, the takings claims for lack of ripeness, the claim against the chair's motion due to absolute immunity, the open-meeting claim because no ongoing violation justified an injunction, and the defamation claim because the plaintiff disclaimed any allegation of fault as required by the First Amendment for speech on a matter of public concern.

civil rightspropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involves Mary V. Edelen's application for Social Security disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits based on degenerative disc disease with back pain, hepatitis C with fatigue, and anxiety and depressive disorders. The administrative law judge denied benefits after finding that Edelen had the residual functional capacity for a limited range of sedentary work, including her past relevant work. The court determined that the ALJ failed to refute the treating physicians' medical opinions with substantial evidence and thus was required to accept those opinions as true. Accepting the opinions as true, the record established that Edelen was disabled with no substantial evidence supporting a contrary conclusion. The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for an award of benefits.

healthcarefederal power

Baker v. McNeil involved a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a Florida state conviction for committing a sexual act with a 15-year-old girl. The petitioner argued that the trial court violated his Confrontation Clause rights by preventing cross-examination and extrinsic evidence showing the complaining witness had made prior false accusations of sexual misconduct, which she admitted in a proffer, and that the state appellate court's harmless-error ruling was incorrect. The federal district court granted the petition on the Confrontation Clause ground, finding that the state court's harmless-error conclusion was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts and an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent like Delaware v. Van Arsdall. The court reasoned that the petitioner's taped interview did not amount to an unequivocal admission of guilt, the excluded evidence was significant for impeachment, and the violation had a substantial injurious effect on the jury's verdict. The conviction was vacated with an order for release or retrial within specified timelines.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Eric Scott Branch's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Florida state-court conviction for sexually battering and murdering a college student and the resulting death sentence. The district court denied the petition in full. The court concluded that the trial was full and fair with minimal errors, that Branch's counsel performed effectively, and that the conviction and sentence rested on the overwhelming weight of the evidence rather than any constitutional violation. Specific claims regarding trial judge errors, ineffective assistance of counsel, use of a prior conviction as an aggravating factor, and inadequate postconviction resources were all rejected as unfounded or procedurally defaulted.

criminal lawfederal power

This case is a civil rights lawsuit brought by a pro se inmate against prison officials, alleging excessive force, retaliation for filing grievances and a lawsuit, racial slurs, false disciplinary reports, and denial of medical care and protective custody. The defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits that denied the allegations and asserting they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation, adopted by the district court, denied the motion after finding that the plaintiff's evidence created genuine disputes of material fact on each claim, making summary judgment inappropriate under the standards of Celotex and related precedents. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

This case involves a commercial airline pilot forced to retire at age 60 under the FAA's age 60 rule who later sought reemployment after Congress raised the mandatory retirement age to 65 in the Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act but without restoring his prior seniority, leading him to sue his former employer United Air Lines as well as the FAA and Department of Transportation. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act along with constitutional challenges to the original age 60 rule, the new age 65 provision, and a related statutory immunity clause. The court dismissed all claims against the federal defendants with prejudice, concluding that damages claims were barred by sovereign immunity, requests for injunctive relief tied to the superseded age 60 rule were moot, the age 65 provision is constitutional, and the immunity provision created no basis for relief from the federal agencies. The case proceeds against United Air Lines.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case arose under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act when the plaintiff alleged that Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles officials unlawfully disclosed drivers’ personal information in bulk to a private company, which then made it publicly available online without consent or a permissible exception. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including failure to state a claim, qualified immunity, lack of standing, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and failure to join indispensable parties. The court denied the motions, holding that the amended complaint met federal pleading standards by plausibly alleging a violation, that the Act clearly established the prohibition on such disclosures so qualified immunity did not apply, and that the plaintiff had standing for his own damages claim while the other asserted immunities and joinder requirements did not bar the action.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a wrongful-death claim by the estate of Kristina Flatt against Barr Laboratories, the maker of a generic version of Adderall, alleging that the company failed to provide adequate warnings about the risk of cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death from prescribed doses of the drug or its combination with pseudoephedrine. The plaintiff asserted Florida common-law claims for negligent and strict-liability failure to warn. The court denied Barr's motion to dismiss, holding that federal law does not preempt such state-law claims against generic-drug manufacturers because they may strengthen labels under FDA regulations while seeking approval. The court also denied summary judgment, finding genuine factual disputes over whether the physician was an adequately warned learned intermediary, whether better warnings would have altered prescribing or patient behavior, and whether the decedent would have heeded warnings, all of which must be resolved by a jury.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Florida Medicaid waiver program beneficiaries with developmental disabilities who challenged the state Agency for Persons with Disabilities' denial of their requests for hearings before tier assignments reduced their benefits. The plaintiffs sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting federal constitutional and statutory rights to pre-termination hearings, after the Agency rejected their hearing requests for lack of specificity in alleging factual disputes. The court granted a preliminary injunction barring benefit reductions without hearings that meet due process standards, denied the motion to dismiss claims against the Agency director, and dismissed claims against the other defendant. It held that beneficiaries may enforce these federal rights directly in federal district court rather than being limited to state courts or administrative appeals. The reasoning centered on federal jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal law by state officials, the inadequacy of the Agency's procedures, and the need for specific hearing protections including notice, evidence presentation, and cross-examination.

healthcarecivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a Florida Department of Corrections employee who claimed he was forced to resign after refusing his boss's order to ask his father, the FDLE commissioner, to halt a criminal investigation of another employee, alleging violations of his First Amendment right not to speak and substantive due process, for which he sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from three state officials in their individual capacities. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The core reasoning was that, even assuming the resignation demand was retaliatory, it was not clearly established at the time that requiring the plaintiff to make a private request to his father implicated protected speech on a matter of public concern or shocked the conscience for due-process purposes, so an objectively reasonable official would not have known the conduct violated the Constitution.

free speechcivil rightscriminal law

In this case, plaintiff Randall Lamont Rolle sued U.S. Marshals Marty West and Mike Womble under Bivens for alleged Fourth Amendment violations during his 2002 arrest on an attempted murder warrant. The officers entered a house where Rolle stayed part-time by breaking a door, arrested him in the attic, conducted a further search that left the premises in disarray, and seized firearms later used as evidence. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the arrest warrant authorized entry into the residence, exigent circumstances justified the post-arrest search and seizure of the gun, Rolle lacked standing to challenge damage to property he did not own, and the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation was adopted, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

criminal lawcivil rightsguns

This case involved a dispute over the payout amounts due under two life insurance policies issued to John Fretwell, where errors in recording his age led to lower premiums than required for his actual age. The beneficiary, Sharon Fretwell, sued the insurer Kansas City Life for the full face amounts of the policies and alternatively sued the agent Y.C. McNease. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff on the first policy and for the insurer on the second, based on findings that the insured provided correct age information to the agent for one policy. The court denied the insurer's motion to alter or amend the judgment, upholding its prior interpretation of the policy language and Florida law that full benefits are due if accurate information was provided to the agent, and it granted the plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss claims against the agent without prejudice due to lack of clear legal prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure